Washington State

Institute for
Public Policy
110 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 214 • PO Box 40999 • Olympia, WA 98504-0999 • (360) 586-2677 • FAX (360) 586-2793

October 2001

Foundations for Learning: Safe and Civil Schools Project

—Summary of Evaluation Findings—

The 1999 Washington State Legislature directed the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
1
(OSPI) to address disruptive behavior by students. Using a $2 million appropriation, OSPI implemented
the Foundations for Learning: Safe and Civil Schools Project to promote a positive instructional
approach to school discipline by building collaborative school teams though a training process. Schools
had to apply for project participation through OSPI’s Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. The project,
funded for two years, included 123 schools: 19 high schools, 26 middle schools, and 78 elementary
schools.

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) was asked by OSPI to evaluate the
Foundations Project. The Institute undertook the evaluation recognizing that:
• School disruption is an important issue to Washington State policymakers and schools;
• Schools can be an efficient location for cost-effective prevention efforts; and
• The project provided an opportunity to test the feasibility of evaluating a school program using a
comparison group—a more scientifically sound evaluation design.

The Institute’s research effort involves evaluating the outcomes of the Foundations Project and
examining the national research literature on “what works” in school settings to reduce disruptive
behavior. This brief report summarizes our findings. A detailed technical report is available on the
Institute’s website (www.wsipp.wa.gov).

EVALUATION DESIGN

To test whether the Foundations Project is achieving its objectives, the Institute compared outcomes
for the project schools to a matched group of non-project schools. To obtain data for the evaluation,
surveys were conducted during May 2001 in both the
project and comparison schools. Surveys were Exhibit 1: Percentage of Teachers Indicating That Disruptive
returned by 183 schools: 105 project schools (85 Behavior Is One of Top Three Problems in Their School
81%
percent of all project schools) and 78 comparison 78%
schools (63 percent of comparison schools). This 66%
impressive response reflects the importance of the
issue of disruptive behavior in these schools, as
illustrated by the survey results shown in Exhibit 1.

The survey results cannot be generalized to represent

all schools in Washington since the OSPI grant
selection process resulted in a set of schools that over-
represent larger schools from lower income
neighborhoods with lower standardized test scores. Elementary School Middle School High School

1
Chapter 166, Laws of 1999 (E2SHB 2085—Disruptive Students)

1
WHAT DO THE SURVEY RESULTS INDICATE?

The Institute’s survey assesses disruptive

behaviors in schools and how these behaviors Exhibit 2: Correlations Between Types of Classroom
affect: a) the learning environment, and b) Disruptions, and Learning and Feeling Safe at School Factors
student safety. The results, shown in Exhibit 2, During the last five days in class, has another student:
Ability to Learn
indicate that some disruptions affect student’s Talked loudly, yelled, or made noises
Feeling Safe
ability to learn, while other types of disruptions that interfered with your schoolwork?
affect student safety. For example, students Refused to cooperate or follow the
associate a lack of general classroom control— instructions of a teacher?
such as talking loudly, yelling, and refusing to
Made fun of you or called you a bad
cooperate—with their ability to learn. On the name that made you feel bad?
other hand, more aggressive disruptions both
inside and outside the classroom—name- Threatened, bullied, or picked on you?
calling, bullying, and physical aggression—are
more closely associated with students not Taken or damaged your personal
property?
feeling safe at school.
Pushed, grabbed, hit, or kicked you?
In addition, a comparison of student and
teacher responses for the same classes
indicates that teachers are not always aware of 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
disruptive behaviors in their classrooms. Correlation

The survey also indicates that high incidences of reported disruptive behavior are not disproportionately
associated with schools that are large, in poor neighborhoods, or have low test scores. The survey findings
summarized here are fairly consistent across the elementary, middle, and high schools. Detailed survey
results are available on the Institute’s website.

These survey results suggest that a single strategy is unlikely to affect both the learning environment and a
student’s feelings about safety. A comprehensive approach that includes school-wide training in discipline
practices, developing school-wide norms for positive student behavior, and focusing on youth with specific
behavior problems is needed.

HOW IS THE FOUNDATIONS PROJECT DOING?

The Institute used the survey to test for differences between the project and comparison schools. The
Foundations for Learning Project is a three-year staff and curriculum development effort to design a
positive school-wide approach for the correction of misbehavior and reinforcement of appropriate behaviors
in a supportive and predictable manner.2

The Institute was not able to survey students in the comparison schools, so the impact of the project on
student-reported behavior could not be assessed. The analysis of the teacher, staff, and administrator
surveys, however, reveals several significant differences between the project and comparison schools. For
example, as displayed in Exhibit 3, relative to teachers in the comparison schools, teachers in the project
elementary schools reported several improvements.

2
Training for the Foundations Project was conducted by Randy Sprick, Ph.D. and Mickey Garrison, Ph.D. (www.behaviorsite.com).

2
 Exhibit 3: Teacher-Reported Behavior in Project Schools, Compared With Comparison Schools
• 8 percent less verbal intimidation: teasing, ridiculing, or name-calling in the classroom
• 6 percent less aggressive verbal intimidation: threatening or bullying in the classroom
• 5 percent less taking or damaging personal property
• 7 percent less pushing, grabbing, hitting, or kicking someone in classroom
• 4 percent less difficulty explaining assignments and giving directions
• 4 percent less difficulty achieving instructional objectives
• 6 percent less of a decrease in desire to continue teaching

The teacher surveys provide evidence that the Foundations Project, after one year of implementation, is
making small positive changes in teacher perception of student disruptive behavior and the impact of these
behaviors on teachers. The program seems to increase teacher morale, since teachers in the project
schools report less of a decrease in a desire to continue teaching. The first-year results from the
administrator and staff surveys, not shown in Exhibit 3, indicate less evidence of positive change.

HAVE SOME PROGRAMS BEEN PROVEN TO REDUCE STUDENT MISCONDUCT?

As part of this study, the Institute also examined the existing research literature to determine if there are programs
proven to reduce disruptive behaviors at school. We found there are many commercially available programs that
have been designed to reduce student misconduct. Unfortunately, only a few of these programs have been
scientifically evaluated, and without this evidence, it is difficult to know what does and does not work.

Fortunately, hopeful signs are emerging from the research community. Denise Gottfredson, at the
University of Maryland, has produced a comprehensive review of the existing literature,3 and researchers at
the University of Colorado have developed a “Blueprint” process to make research-proven programs
available for “real world” use.4

Gottfredson classifies the existing programs into two types: programs that work with teachers and staff to
change the school-wide environment, and those that work directly to change student behavior. She
discovered that, on average, programs that change the school-wide environment by improving school and
discipline management and establishing norms or expectations for proper behavior, like the Foundations
Project, are effective in reducing problem behaviors and improving staff morale. On the other hand,
programs that change classroom management or reorganization of students are promising, but need more
supporting evidence.

For programs that work directly with students to change behaviors, Gottfredson found that the use of
cognitive-behavioral methods5 to develop student social skills is effective. On the other hand, she found
that lecture-style methods for skill development, counseling, social work, therapeutic interventions,
recreation, community service, enrichment, and leisure activities are not particularly effective. Mentoring,
tutoring, and work-study are promising programs that need more study.

The University of Colorado has taken this one significant step further. The Center’s efforts go beyond
identifying programs that work, to recognizing as equally important the process of having the program
implemented correctly so that it becomes part of a school’s culture. The Center has identified the best-
researched programs as “Blueprint” programs because they have been replicated and shown to work more
than once. Programs with fewer successful replications are called “promising.” A list of the relevant
Blueprint and promising programs identified by the University of Colorado is provided on the back page.

3
Denise C. Gottfredson, Schools and Delinquency, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Her website is www.gottfredson.com; and
www.gottfredson.com/summary.pdf summarizes her most recent study.
4
University of Colorado Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints.
5
Cognitive-behavioral methods use role modeling, rehearsal, and coaching with repeated performance, feedback, and
reinforcement to learn skills and change behaviors.
3
CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary evaluation of the Foundations Project is encouraging since the teacher surveys show some
positive improvements after the first year of the planned three-year implementation effort. News from the
research community is also encouraging. Researchers are having success in finding programs shown to
change school environments and student behaviors. Schools can be more confident in implementing a
research-based school-wide initiative to develop effective discipline practices and school norms, and then
adding programs within that environment to target specific behaviors, such as bullying, or programs that
focus on specific at-risk student groups.

University of Colorado “Blueprint” Programs for Schools

www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies for elementary schools (PATHS): A comprehensive multi-year program
for promoting emotional and social competencies and reducing behavior problems while enhancing the educational
process in the classroom. Although primarily focused on the school and classroom settings, information and activities
are also included for use with parents.

Bullying Prevention Program for elementary, middle, and junior high schools: A universal intervention for the
reduction and prevention of bully/victim problems. School staff has the primary responsibility for the introduction and
implementation of the program. All students participate in most aspects of the program with additional individual
interventions targeted at students who are identified as bullies or victims of bullying.

University of Colorado “Promising” Programs for Schools

FAST Track for grades K through 6: This intervention specifically targets children identified in kindergarten for
disruptive behavior and poor peer relations. It is most intense during first grade and the transition to middle school and
includes parent training, home visitations, social skills training, academic tutoring, and classroom intervention utilizes
the paths curriculum.

Seattle Social Development Project for grades 1 through 6: A universal, multidimensional intervention combining
parent and teacher training. Teachers receive instruction in proactive classroom management, interactive teaching,
and cooperative learning. First-grade teachers teach communication, decision-making, negotiation, and conflict
resolution skills; and sixth-grade teachers present refusal skills training. Parents receive optional training throughout
their children’s schooling.
I Can Problem Solve for kindergarten and possibly elementary school: This a school-based intervention designed
for kindergarten, but it has also been successfully implemented in grades 5 and 6, that trains children in interpersonal
problem solving, and recognizing thoughts, feelings, and motives that generate problem situations.

Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers for elementary schools: A school-based intervention for schools in
at-risk neighborhoods involving classroom, playground, and parent components.

Project PATHE for secondary schools: A comprehensive program involving staff, students, parents, and community
members working together to design and implement improvement programs.
School Transitional Environmental Program for large, urban junior or senior high schools which serve
predominantly non-white, lower-income students: A program to reduce school disorganization by restructuring the role
of the homeroom teacher and the facility.

Preventive Intervention for junior high school: A two-year intervention starting in the 7th grade for high-risk adolescents
to provide a school environment that allows students to realize that their actions can bring about desired consequences by
eliciting participation from teachers, parents, and individuals.
Baltimore Mastery Learning and Good Behavior Game for elementary school: Interventions focusing on
strengthening reading achievement and decreasing early aggressive and shy behaviors respectively. The Mastery
Learning intervention utilizes a group-based approach in which students advance when a majority of the class has
mastered the learning objectives. The Good Behavior Game is primarily a behavior modification program that involves
students and teachers.

For questions or comments on this report contact Robert Barnoski. Ph.D. (360) 586-2744; barney@wsipp.wa.gov.
Document Number 01-10-2201